Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-03-10IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ~ ~ '` " ~`"' CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVA I ; IN RE: ESTATE OF DAw{D H. CLOUSER ORPHAN'S COt~~ Y ~ N0. 21-2009-0204 ANSWER. TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND N01iN comes Petitioner, Douglas Clouser, as Respondentlco-personal representative ~,of the Estate, by and through his counsel, Michael 0. Palermo, Jr., and the attorneys aft ROMINGER ~t ASSOCIATES, Answers as follows: 1. Adm~tted. - ~ ~,ro q ~ ~~' 3. Admitted. ~~".~ ~- w -.~~' `~~' ,,~ ~ ~ i 4. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that the parlald jo~gtly ~ ~_ ;~ --- ...~ u met with Attorney's prior to this action. However, the parties initially °' ~' jointly met with another local law firm to have the property re-diee~ed so that they could properly insure the estate property, when the time name to sign the deed, Petitioner refused to sign unless Respondent agreed to sell her the home at a unwpported `low-ball' price as appraised by one Hof Petitioner's acquaintances. 5. Admitted. By way of further answer, said action was only taken as ~ last resort. Petitioner's son, who is believed to be residing with Petitioner in the estate real property, threatened to "punch [Respondent] in thei head unless he sold the property to his mother". By way of further answer, in the event Petitioner's son is residing in the residence, he is an additional - - - __ _ _ _-_ - _ - - _ L_ ~ _ _ -- tenant not accounted for in the will. The only recourse is additional rent payments to Respondent or eviction of the additional tenant from the premises. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted in so much as it reiterates the terms of an Order or Courts denied in so much as the correct date as to which rents due to Respondent'~should calculate from June 1, 2009. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied in so much as Respondent herein has not received specific p~`oof that said property taxes have been paid. it is also specifically deniE~d that Petitioner Debra Houseman has the contents of the property insured. 10. Admitted that the request was made, denied that the offset in regards to rents was accepted by Respondent, nor was the same put into effect. 11. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is specifically admitted that theh relationship between co-representatives has deteriorated. Said deteriorated relationship is based upon the numerous times he hats contacted his sister/Petitioner herein in regards to issues surround tie disposition of property only to be berated and eventually hung up or- by Petitioner. By way of further answer, Respondent, through Counsel engaged the Rowe Auction and appraisal House in Carlisle, Pennsylvania in accordance with the January 2010 Order of Court. To date, Petitioneer has not given her assent to the engagement of Mr. Rowe as appraiser of the estate personal property. Moreover, Petitioner has removed numerous items from the residence that have yet to be located, this has resulted in escalating the hostilities and general mistrust between the parties. 12. Respondent Answers each allegation/statement in turn as follows: A. Denied. Appraisal is a term of art. The property has been appraised, it would appear it has not been appraised to the satisfaction of Petitioner. B. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that said storage units exist. It is specifically asserted that Respondent has on numerous occasions sought permission from Petitioner to inventory and sell the contents of one (1) of the storage units which contain what is tantamount to `junk' or `odds and ends' and not items of significant value to they estate. C. Denied. Responding party has no one to confirm or deny this as any and all estate mail has been delivered to Petitioner. In addition, Respondent herein has provided auction receipts to Petitioner for the calendar year 2009. 13. Admitted. By way of further answer, while Petitioner's counsel han~i- delivered a check to undersigned counsel, the amount of the check rlvas $300.00 short as the amount due was apparently not including the mjonth of May 2009, for which rents were clearly due and owing under any plan reading or the Wilt and this Honorable Court's Order of January 201 a. 14. No response deemed required. 15. Admitted. Although the amount paid should have been calculated flrom June 2009, not July 1, 2010 as counsel for Petitioner suggests, therefore Respondent believes the payments to be in arrears $300.00. 16. Denied. By way of further answer, Respondent initially sought caun~el in this case [and judicial intervention] to assure the estate property was insured and not subjected to waste, neglect or misdealing. It was Respondent who made the proactive attempt to remove Petitioner end expose her strong arm tactics to force settlement of the estate property so that Petitioner could enjoy a windfall. By way of further answer, undersigned counsel was not counsel for tjhe estate when the initial taxes were presumably due. 17. Respondent is alevel-headed, respectful man and lifelong federal employee. He is also an expert in antiques as he was an apprentice land then partner with the deceased in the business of buying, selling andl restoring antiques. 18. Admitted as a matter or law, although the relief sought it specificall~r objected to by Respondent herein. 19. Denied. By way of further answer, Respondent has tried several altt~mpts to amitabty resolve this matter and get the estate property to market. Given his expertise, Respondent knows that there are certain seasons in which certain antiquated items sell at a higher price. Petitioner would have the estate suffer great financial harm if her `fire sale' position to the estate property were to occur. By way of further specific examples, Petitioner/Co-personal representative/Sister has unilaterally made changes to the estate property including but not limited removing doors from the hinges, trees andl several items of estate property from the residence in order to avoid valuation of the same. WHEREFORE, your respondent respectfully requests that the Petition tb Appoint Penonot Representative be denied. Date: 3 ~~ Respectfully submitted, ROMINC~R 8t ASSOCUITES Michael 0. Palermo, Jr., airs 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 93334 Attorney for Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COIIRMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: ESTATE OF DAVID H. CLOUSER ORPHAN'S COURT NO.21-2009-0204 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael 0. Palermo, Jr., Esquire, do hereby certify that 1 served a copy of tie Answer upon the following by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: R. Mark Thomas, Esquire 101 S. Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Date: ~ f~' Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER E ASSOCIATES Michael 0. Palermo, Jr'!, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court 1D # 93334 Attorney for Petitioner